rejected the Israeli government’s argument that the “necessity” defense—a provision in Israeli criminal law that absolves a person of liability if the crime was committed to prevent serious imminent harm—serves as a basis for advance authorization to use physical coercion. It did, however, leave open the possibility that Shin Bet interrogators could avail themselves of the necessity defense if criminally indicted.41 A tragic case involving the kidnapping and murder of an 11-year-old boy in Germany in 2002 illustrates the willingness in Europe to accept, even advocate, police threats of torture and torture itself in seemingly exceptional circumstances. Believing the boy to be alive, Frankfurt deputy police chief Wolfgang Daschner ordered a subordinate to threaten the kidnapper, who had been arrested after he collected the ransom, with severe pain if he did not reveal the child’s whereabouts. After having been so threatened, Magnus Gäfgen confessed to kidnapping the boy and told police where to find him. At Gäfgen’s trial, the Frankfurt Am Main Regional Court excluded the statements he made following the threat, and while they allowed evidence obtained as a result of those statements, based his 2003 conviction and life sentence on his admission of guilt at trial. In December 2004, the same court convicted Daschner of incitement to commit coercion and the subordinate who carried out the threat of coercion, and sentenced them to suspended fines. Daschner was subsequently promoted. At the same time, public figures in Germany sought to justify Daschner’s actions with very much the same arguments as those adopted by the Landau Commission. The chairman of the German Association of Judges, Geert Mackenroth said there were cases “in which the use of torture and the threatening of torture may be allowed, namely if one hurts a legally protected interest only to protect a higher valued legally protected interest.”42 His view was echoed by then Federal Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries.43 Jörg Schönbohm, then interior H.C. 5188/96 Wa’al Al Kaaqua, Ibrahim Abd’allah Ganimat and the Center for the Defence of the Individual v. The General Security Service and the Prison Commander – Jerusalem. H.C. 7563/97 Abd Al Rahman Ismail Ganimat and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. The Minister of Defence and the General Security Service. H.C. 7628/97 Fouad Awad Quran and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. The Minister of Defense and the General Security Service. H.C. 1043/99 Issa Ali Batat v. The General Security Service. 41 Ibid., paras. 33-38. 42 “Greift nach heissen Eisen auch ohen Handschuh: Geert Mackenroth,” Die Welt, February 21, 2003, http://www.welt.de/print-welt/article405837/Greift_nach_heissen_Eisen_auch_ohne_Handschuh_Geert_Mackenroth.html (accessed November 10, 2009). 43 “Police Threat Fuels Debate on Torture,” Deutsche Welle, February 24, 2003, http://www.dwworld.de/dw/article/0,,785751,00.html (accessed November 10, 2009). 17 Human Rights Watch | June 2010